SCOTUS has made Mitt Romney's candidacy utterly worthless

[WhyteRain]

Certain people in this thread seem to be forgetting that roughly 25-30% of the opposition to Obamacare, according to polls, comes from the left (people who want single-payer). Only about 40-45% of the nation opposes Obamacare from the right.

Obviously you're referring to me.  You suggest that a substantial number of the opponents of DemocratCare think the only problem with it is that it doesn't impose enough government control on people's health care decisions.  Here's the problem with your analysis:

The Florida poll shows that the percentage of people who disagree with DemocratCare (50%) is almost identical with the percentage that think it will make health care worse (47%) and that think it will make health care more expensive (51%).  http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=3c025172-d766-4ce7-928f-01f11c9c0671&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter  For your analysis to hold water, these figures would have to be far further apart.  Only 20% of respondents think DemocratCare will "make health care better" -- which is about the same percentage of Americans who self-identify as "liberals" and nearly all of whom would be in the 39% who supported the SCOTUS decision.  Only 12% think it will reduce health care costs.  (I also note that the Florida survey included only 61% white people; the Nov. 6th electorate will be substantially whiter than that.)

In other words, Obama and the Democratic hold on the Senate are dead.  Nearly every. single. one. of those 50% will be out to vote -- not for Romney, but against DemocratCare.  How many of the 39%, only one-third of whom (12% of 39%) think DemocratCare will lower their health care costs, are going to run to the polls to vote it up?

Landslide.

I also suspect you will see a small jump in public opinion for the act now that it has been upheld. Whether or not it makes sense, there are voters out there who unconsciuosly like to be on the "winning" side of an issue and will change their minds now.

I recall someone else making exactly the same prediction in March, 2010, when DemocratCare was passed and signed into law.  They were right.  There was a jump of about 4% in favor for about two weeks. 

Anyways, Mitt won't bring this issue up very often because he knows he looks like a hypocrite on it. Also because the patient protection reforms are very popular and now he's on record wanting to repeal them.

True.  Romney is the very undeserving beneficiary of this. 
[/quote]

[Jayhawker]

Why would Romney's candidacy be considered "worthless" due to health care, consideirng less than 10% of American's consider it their top issue?

Rick Santorum may have potentially had a leg up on Romney in terms of health care, but in terms of the economy, which is by far the most important issue, Romney is the best nominee for the GOP.

[True Federalist]

The Florida poll shows that the percentage of people who disagree with DemocratCare (50%) is almost identical with the percentage that think it will make health care worse (47%) and that think it will make health care more expensive (51%).  http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=3c025172-d766-4ce7-928f-01f11c9c0671&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter  For your analysis to hold water, these figures would have to be far further apart.  Only 20% of respondents think DemocratCare will "make health care better" -- which is about the same percentage of Americans who self-identify as "liberals" and nearly all of whom would be in the 39% who supported the SCOTUS decision.  Only 12% think it will reduce health care costs.  (I also note that the Florida survey included only 61% white people; the Nov. 6th electorate will be substantially whiter than that.)

What you are neglecting is that for the most part, the people who think the ACA didn't go far enough believe that going to single payer will both improve the quality of health care and reduce its cost.

The most striking info from that poll is the following:

Should everyone in the United States be required to have health insurance?

	Republicans	Democrats	Independents
Yes	13%	59%	35%
No	86%	39%	58%
Not sure	1%	2%	7%

Should insurance companies be able to deny health insurance to those who have pre-existing medical conditions?

	Republicans	Democrats	Independents
Yes	27%	6%	14%
No	68%	85%	80%
Not sure	5%	9%	6%

It just goes to show that we have a nation of idiots, if so many people apparently think results would be desirable if we required insurance companies to issue insurance at will without requiring people to buy it.  That particular idiocy is somewhat more concentrated among Republicans than Democrats, but there is more than enough to go around.

[WhyteRain]

The Florida poll shows that the percentage of people who disagree with DemocratCare (50%) is almost identical with the percentage that think it will make health care worse (47%) and that think it will make health care more expensive (51%).  http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=3c025172-d766-4ce7-928f-01f11c9c0671&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter  For your analysis to hold water, these figures would have to be far further apart.  Only 20% of respondents think DemocratCare will "make health care better" -- which is about the same percentage of Americans who self-identify as "liberals" and nearly all of whom would be in the 39% who supported the SCOTUS decision.  Only 12% think it will reduce health care costs.  (I also note that the Florida survey included only 61% white people; the Nov. 6th electorate will be substantially whiter than that.)

What you are neglecting is that for the most part, the people who think the ACA didn't go far enough believe that going to single payer will both improve the quality of health care and reduce its cost.

The most striking info from that poll is the following:

Should everyone in the United States be required to have health insurance?

	Republicans	Democrats	Independents
Yes	13%	59%	35%
No	86%	39%	58%
Not sure	1%	2%	7%

Should insurance companies be able to deny health insurance to those who have pre-existing medical conditions?

	Republicans	Democrats	Independents
Yes	27%	6%	14%
No	68%	85%	80%
Not sure	5%	9%	6%

It just goes to show that we have a nation of idiots, if so many people apparently think results would be desirable if we required insurance companies to issue insurance at will without requiring people to buy it.  That particular idiocy is somewhat more concentrated among Republicans than Democrats, but there is more than enough to go around.

You're sort of right.  We are a nation of idiots, mostly because the cultural elites want us that way.  I define "idiocy" as thinking that there is any such thing as "insurance for a pre-existing condition".  A pre-existing condition, when words meant things, is, by definition, non-insurable.  But I just heard a commercial featuring Mitt Romney -- the scion of both Harvard Business and Harvard Law Schools! -- saying that "we must provide insurance for pre-existing conditions".

So, tell your progressive friends not to worry:  Thanks to an intentionally mal-informed electorate, we'll have a two-tier, North Korean-style health care system sooner than they think.

[Lloyd Bentsen's Ghost]

Why would Romney's candidacy be considered "worthless" due to health care, consideirng less than 10% of American's consider it their top issue?

Rick Santorum may have potentially had a leg up on Romney in terms of health care, but in terms of the economy, which is by far the most important issue, Romney is the best nominee for the GOP.

Romney's economic pitch: I know how to create jobs.

He didn't create jobs as governor. Look at Massachusetts' job growth numbers from when he was in office.

He didn't create jobs when he was working in private equity.

[hawkeye59]

The Florida poll shows that the percentage of people who disagree with DemocratCare (50%) is almost identical with the percentage that think it will make health care worse (47%) and that think it will make health care more expensive (51%).  http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=3c025172-d766-4ce7-928f-01f11c9c0671&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter  For your analysis to hold water, these figures would have to be far further apart.  Only 20% of respondents think DemocratCare will "make health care better" -- which is about the same percentage of Americans who self-identify as "liberals" and nearly all of whom would be in the 39% who supported the SCOTUS decision.  Only 12% think it will reduce health care costs.  (I also note that the Florida survey included only 61% white people; the Nov. 6th electorate will be substantially whiter than that.)

What you are neglecting is that for the most part, the people who think the ACA didn't go far enough believe that going to single payer will both improve the quality of health care and reduce its cost.

The most striking info from that poll is the following:

Should everyone in the United States be required to have health insurance?

	Republicans	Democrats	Independents
Yes	13%	59%	35%
No	86%	39%	58%
Not sure	1%	2%	7%

Should insurance companies be able to deny health insurance to those who have pre-existing medical conditions?

	Republicans	Democrats	Independents
Yes	27%	6%	14%
No	68%	85%	80%
Not sure	5%	9%	6%

It just goes to show that we have a nation of idiots, if so many people apparently think results would be desirable if we required insurance companies to issue insurance at will without requiring people to buy it.  That particular idiocy is somewhat more concentrated among Republicans than Democrats, but there is more than enough to go around.

You're sort of right.  We are a nation of idiots, mostly because the cultural elites want us that way.  I define "idiocy" as thinking that there is any such thing as "insurance for a pre-existing condition".  A pre-existing condition, when words meant things, is, by definition, non-insurable.  But I just heard a commercial featuring Mitt Romney -- the scion of both Harvard Business and Harvard Law Schools! -- saying that "we must provide insurance for pre-existing conditions".

So, tell your progressive friends not to worry:  Thanks to an intentionally mal-informed electorate, we'll have a two-tier, North Korean-style health care system sooner than they think.

You mean British-style, Australian-style, or Canadian-style, right? Or French, German, Russian, South Korean, Japanese, Italian, Spanish, Polish, Portuguese, Israeli, Taiwanese, Brazilian, Argentine, along with nearly all of europe, except for belarus, serbia, bulgaria, albania, turkey, and montenegro, AND quite a few other countries. Not quite North Korean-style, but pretty much Entire Western World except for us-style.

[Badger]

This will help both.

Romney will galvanize the base. Obama can run on a genuine bit of 'change' suceeded (the value of which being debatable at best).

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Which Mitt Romney? The one who said this?

Right now people who can afford to buy insurance make the decision, ‘I’m not going to buy insurance. I’m going to be a free rider.’ And if I get sick or get in a serious accident, then government’s going to pay for me. That, in my view is the big-government solution we have right now. The alternative – there are a couple of alternatives – one is to say to employers you must give insurance to every one of your employees. I said, ‘No, I don’t want to do that. That’s going to kill jobs.’ And the other alternative is to say to people if you can afford to get insurance, you ought to buy insurance. And if you don’t buy it you’re going to get penalized with a higher tax rate for not having gotten insurance. Now you tell me which of those is the big-government plan and which is the personal responsibility plan.

Mitt Romney thought that a mandate and taxes were a good idea when it came to RomneyCare. Why is it suddenly a bad idea when it comes to ObamaCare?

[milhouse24]

Which Mitt Romney? The one who said this?

Right now people who can afford to buy insurance make the decision, ‘I’m not going to buy insurance. I’m going to be a free rider.’ And if I get sick or get in a serious accident, then government’s going to pay for me. That, in my view is the big-government solution we have right now. The alternative – there are a couple of alternatives – one is to say to employers you must give insurance to every one of your employees. I said, ‘No, I don’t want to do that. That’s going to kill jobs.’ And the other alternative is to say to people if you can afford to get insurance, you ought to buy insurance. And if you don’t buy it you’re going to get penalized with a higher tax rate for not having gotten insurance. Now you tell me which of those is the big-government plan and which is the personal responsibility plan.

Mitt Romney thought that a mandate and taxes were a good idea when it came to RomneyCare. Why is it suddenly a bad idea when it comes to ObamaCare?

Why don't you understand that people in different states want different things.  Unlike rich liberals in California or Massachusetts, there are real people who don't want to pay for a mandatory health care tax or premium.  Some states don't have the money to budget for the HC exchanges, expanded medicaid, and they simply don't have the hospital/doctors available to meet the increased demand. 

[Senator MaxQue]

Which Mitt Romney? The one who said this?

Right now people who can afford to buy insurance make the decision, ‘I’m not going to buy insurance. I’m going to be a free rider.’ And if I get sick or get in a serious accident, then government’s going to pay for me. That, in my view is the big-government solution we have right now. The alternative – there are a couple of alternatives – one is to say to employers you must give insurance to every one of your employees. I said, ‘No, I don’t want to do that. That’s going to kill jobs.’ And the other alternative is to say to people if you can afford to get insurance, you ought to buy insurance. And if you don’t buy it you’re going to get penalized with a higher tax rate for not having gotten insurance. Now you tell me which of those is the big-government plan and which is the personal responsibility plan.

Mitt Romney thought that a mandate and taxes were a good idea when it came to RomneyCare. Why is it suddenly a bad idea when it comes to ObamaCare?

Why don't you understand that people in different states want different things.  Unlike rich liberals in California or Massachusetts, there are real people who don't want to pay for a mandatory health care tax or premium.  Some states don't have the money to budget for the HC exchanges, expanded medicaid, and they simply don't have the hospital/doctors available to meet the increased demand. 

Oh! You're Sarah Palin! And no, California and Masschuseets aren't in Fake America, whatever it is.

[milhouse24]

The Florida poll shows that the percentage of people who disagree with DemocratCare (50%) is almost identical with the percentage that think it will make health care worse (47%) and that think it will make health care more expensive (51%).  http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=3c025172-d766-4ce7-928f-01f11c9c0671&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter  For your analysis to hold water, these figures would have to be far further apart.  Only 20% of respondents think DemocratCare will "make health care better" -- which is about the same percentage of Americans who self-identify as "liberals" and nearly all of whom would be in the 39% who supported the SCOTUS decision.  Only 12% think it will reduce health care costs.  (I also note that the Florida survey included only 61% white people; the Nov. 6th electorate will be substantially whiter than that.)

What you are neglecting is that for the most part, the people who think the ACA didn't go far enough believe that going to single payer will both improve the quality of health care and reduce its cost.

The most striking info from that poll is the following:

Should everyone in the United States be required to have health insurance?

	Republicans	Democrats	Independents
Yes	13%	59%	35%
No	86%	39%	58%
Not sure	1%	2%	7%

Should insurance companies be able to deny health insurance to those who have pre-existing medical conditions?

	Republicans	Democrats	Independents
Yes	27%	6%	14%
No	68%	85%	80%
Not sure	5%	9%	6%

It just goes to show that we have a nation of idiots, if so many people apparently think results would be desirable if we required insurance companies to issue insurance at will without requiring people to buy it.  That particular idiocy is somewhat more concentrated among Republicans than Democrats, but there is more than enough to go around.

Actually it proves that liberals want FREE stuff (discounts on pre-existing conditions).  

But republicans don't want to be mandatory taxed to pay for these discounts on the HC premiums.  

Of course everyone wants free stuff without paying for it.  Now we are gladly slaves to the Health Care industry.  Obama is not the president, its the president of Blue Cross, etc.  
The Insurance industry owns the POTUS.  

[milhouse24]

Which Mitt Romney? The one who said this?

Right now people who can afford to buy insurance make the decision, ‘I’m not going to buy insurance. I’m going to be a free rider.’ And if I get sick or get in a serious accident, then government’s going to pay for me. That, in my view is the big-government solution we have right now. The alternative – there are a couple of alternatives – one is to say to employers you must give insurance to every one of your employees. I said, ‘No, I don’t want to do that. That’s going to kill jobs.’ And the other alternative is to say to people if you can afford to get insurance, you ought to buy insurance. And if you don’t buy it you’re going to get penalized with a higher tax rate for not having gotten insurance. Now you tell me which of those is the big-government plan and which is the personal responsibility plan.

Mitt Romney thought that a mandate and taxes were a good idea when it came to RomneyCare. Why is it suddenly a bad idea when it comes to ObamaCare?

Why don't you understand that people in different states want different things.  Unlike rich liberals in California or Massachusetts, there are real people who don't want to pay for a mandatory health care tax or premium.  Some states don't have the money to budget for the HC exchanges, expanded medicaid, and they simply don't have the hospital/doctors available to meet the increased demand. 

Oh! You're Sarah Palin! And no, California and Masschuseets aren't in Fake America, whatever it is.

If universal health care is so popular, then why didnt California pass it for their own state?

[Lloyd Bentsen's Ghost]

Unlike rich liberals in California or Massachusetts, there are real people who don't want to pay for a mandatory health care tax or premium. 

Yes, I'm sure there are "real people" who don't want to pay for the healthcare they receive (because if they won't buy health insurance and they can't/won't pay a small fee not to, how exactly are they paying for doctor visits and hospital bills?). They're the people who get in a car wreck, rack up a $60,000 hospital bill and have no way of paying for it.

[True Federalist]

The Florida poll shows that the percentage of people who disagree with DemocratCare (50%) is almost identical with the percentage that think it will make health care worse (47%) and that think it will make health care more expensive (51%).  http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=3c025172-d766-4ce7-928f-01f11c9c0671&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter  For your analysis to hold water, these figures would have to be far further apart.  Only 20% of respondents think DemocratCare will "make health care better" -- which is about the same percentage of Americans who self-identify as "liberals" and nearly all of whom would be in the 39% who supported the SCOTUS decision.  Only 12% think it will reduce health care costs.  (I also note that the Florida survey included only 61% white people; the Nov. 6th electorate will be substantially whiter than that.)

What you are neglecting is that for the most part, the people who think the ACA didn't go far enough believe that going to single payer will both improve the quality of health care and reduce its cost.

The most striking info from that poll is the following:

Should everyone in the United States be required to have health insurance?

	Republicans	Democrats	Independents
Yes	13%	59%	35%
No	86%	39%	58%
Not sure	1%	2%	7%

Should insurance companies be able to deny health insurance to those who have pre-existing medical conditions?

	Republicans	Democrats	Independents
Yes	27%	6%	14%
No	68%	85%	80%
Not sure	5%	9%	6%

It just goes to show that we have a nation of idiots, if so many people apparently think results would be desirable if we required insurance companies to issue insurance at will without requiring people to buy it.  That particular idiocy is somewhat more concentrated among Republicans than Democrats, but there is more than enough to go around.

Actually it proves that liberals want FREE stuff (discounts on pre-existing conditions).

I thought the Republican talking point on this was that the mandate is a TAX (and all TAXES are EVIL), which will cost lots of money anf thus is not FREE.

 

But republicans don't want to be mandatory taxed to pay for these discounts on the HC premiums.  

Of course everyone wants free stuff without paying for it.  Now we are gladly slaves to the Health Care industry.  Obama is not the president, its the president of Blue Cross, etc.  
The Insurance industry owns the POTUS.  

What your post proves is that you are inept at interpreting statistics.

What those results show is that at minimum 55% of Republicans want to have a free ride by allowing people to wait until they have a serious condition to buy insurance. (68 % who want must issue - 13% who want must buy) By contrast, at most 39% of Democrats want that. 

[milhouse24]

Look, liberals and republicans want health care for pre-existing conditions. 

Republicans just don't want to pay extra taxes. 

The universal health care mandate is just a way for all taxpayers to subsidize pre-existing conditions. 

There's no such thing as a free lunch.  And liberals sound like the Health Care companies are doing them a huge favor.  Well I would be pretty happy as an HMO executive if my customer base just doubled overnight.  (I think that's called a Monopoly). 

So liberals enjoy subsidizing corporations and corporate welfare, hooray!

[True Federalist]

Look, liberals and republicans want health care for pre-existing conditions. 

Republicans just don't want to pay extra taxes. 

The universal health care mandate is just a way for all taxpayers to subsidize pre-existing conditions. 

There's no such thing as a free lunch.  And liberals sound like the Health Care companies are doing them a huge favor.  Well I would be pretty happy as an HMO executive if my customer base just doubled overnight.  (I think that's called a Monopoly). 

So liberals enjoy subsidizing corporations and corporate welfare, hooray!

Fixed for you.  I could be a Republican if there weren't so many dishonest ones who promise voters that we can cut taxes, balance the budget, while cutting only the wasteful spending (i.e., spending that doesn't affect you, just some other schmoe).

Not that Democrats are more truthful, they just tell different lies.

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

The constuitional criticism is still valid as this act is just that. Unconstuitional.

But the Court just ruled it constitutional.

That's what that big building across the street from Congress is for.

The Supreme Court also said that blacks are not citizens, once upon a time.  It's not an infallible institution.

Next time, don't forget to invoke Hitler.

People like you disgust me. You live in some comfortable California suburb, being provided with everything by your parents, while millions of people are not as fortunate as you, they need this to simply not die. But of course you either don't know that or you don't care.

I wish you to stay comfortable, Morgan. You wouldn't survive in the real world.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

...